Sponsored Links

May 29, 2009

Many in our midst have spent the past few days (if not weeks) digging for SOMETHING on SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor -- whether dirt, info, gossip, or substantive tidbits -- to fuel the hearty appetites of all who plan to participate in the looming confirmation battle. But, as this blogress observed in the immediate aftermath of SS's official debut, POTUS and his team may have selected a virtually bulletproof candidate ... which would mean some very sore paws for the most avid diggers, but probably no buried bone.

Not to worry, groupies! No smoking gun doesn't have to mean "Caution: months of boredom ahead." An article in yesterday's NYT described the fascinating path traveled by Team POTUS on their search for a golden nominee. If you thought that we were living in an era of transparent virtue and relentless sunshine: think again. Apparently, the nominee selection process required stealth, intrigue, and (gasp!) even minor subterfuge. Hours of POTUS's time were blocked out under the designation "Chief of Staff Strategy" in order to disguise the true nature of the handwringing underway; meetings took place around adviser Cynthia Hogan's kitchen table ("more coffee, POTUS?"), and a crucial moment in the decision-making process appears to be closely linked to POTUS's ingestion of a salad.

And take heart, gossip seekers: there are a few rumblings afoot which promise to add color to the debate ahead. Sure, some are relatively understated, like the news that SS is rockin' diabetes, and failed to vote in two recent New York State elections. But this blogress is most intrigued by reports about SS's famously "sharp tongue."

As we all know, Professor Jeffrey Rosen was lambasted when, pre-nomination, he quoted anonymous sources who called SS a "bully," among other things. Now, in the cold light of day, critics and supporters alike have gone on-record to express their concerns about Sotomayor's "judicial temperament." Specifically, some have wondered whether she has expressed an appropriately Supreme level of "judicial modesty," while others have predicted that the sassy Sotomayor would sizzle too loudly on the bench.

One oft-cited example of SS's feistiness: her rigorous questioning of counsel at oral argument in a case concerning a detainee's allegations of torture against POTUS's predecessors. Indeed, the transcripts show, SS came so close to benchslapping the government attorney that Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs had to delicately rescue said attorney from the heat of her grilling. Others defend Judge Sotomayor, noting that her questioning is a mere outgrowth of her "formidable" intelligence and tendency to uber-prepare. Still others -- such as attorneys Sheema Chaudhry and Gerald Lefcourt -- describe SS as "judgmental" (perhaps an odd word choice, given that we are talking about a judge), "temperamental," and "more strident and vocal" that her colleagues. Others have called SS a "terror on the bench" who "behaves in an out-of-control manner."

Meow! Clerquette is delighted by the questions presented by a bench occupied by both Nino AND a sharp-tongued, no-nonsense girl from the hood. Could we be in for the hottest bench One First Street has seen? Some internecine warfare? A battle for primacy, the likes of which have not been seen since Barbara Walters and Rosie O'Donnell sparred for the soul of The View?

If any of these scenarios -- or another, as yet unimagined -- comes to pass, it will, at the very least, be fodder for Sotomayor: the Movie. Not in your Netflix queue, you say? Well, dear readers, it's still in development. But you can check out these brilliant casting proposals, courtesy of the folks over at the Daily Beast. In the meantime, the DivaWatch continues.

And remember: A3G and I await your questions for SS. Send them, and she will come.

May 28, 2009

Not surprisingly, most of the actors are considerably younger and/or more attractive than the real-life individuals they'd portray. But make-up can work wonders - as your above-signed blogress can attest....

May 27, 2009

Most Likely to Indicate that SS Prefers to be the One Asking Questions

As we learned yesterday, we live in a world in which dreams really do come true. Did young Sonia Sotomayor ever dream that she would ascend to the federal judiciary? Swing by POTUS's place on a random Thursday for [what was undoubtedly] and empathy-filled chat? Command a morning presser at the White House to face the nation as a nominee to the Highest Court in the Land?

On information and belief, the answers to the above Questions Presented are, respectively, no, no, and no. But we live in America, dear readers, where anything can happen.

Perhaps that's why the above-signed blogress dreamed last night of a world in which SS, still redolent with that new-nominee smell, would sit down for an interview with the Supremes' ultimate fans: Clerquette and Article III Groupie. And who's to say we don't live in such a world? Perhaps SS will eschew the ardent requests of the Grey Lady, WaPo, CNN, the AP, Time, 60 Minutos, and the rest of the madding crowd, and grace her friends at UTR (who TRULY appreciate her) with a bit of face time. Hint, hint.

Clerquette will be practicing positive visualization, and has read The Secret cover to cover, hoping to pick up tips about maximizing prospects for dream achievement. Since she is fully convinced that, yes: we can! woo SS, we need to do some homework. Stated differently, when SMS eventually sits down for an exclusive with her gal pals at UTR, where will our chat begin?

Groupies: unite! The moment to mobilize is now! We need your suggestions, requests, and most shameless admissions about what YOU want to know about SS, from the mouth of SS. What's that sound (you ask)? It's Clerquette cracking the reader-participation whip. Don't wait for someone else to do it; we all know where that leads.

Well, Groupies: we had a lot of excitement yesterday. Some of you may have dined heartily from the buffet of Judge Sotomayor ("SS") coverage, and awakened feeling a bit over-served. Others may have approached the rich sampling of "Sotmayors d' oeuvres" with more moderation, and be feeling slightly less satiated. Still others may have to sheepishly admit to some late-night interweb activity, during which [arguably excessive] consumption of nomination-related materials occurred. This blogress sees nothing wrong with the last of these categories, or, for that matter, admitting that one is powerless over judicial gossip.

So, dear readers: where are we on the Morning After the big event ... and where do we go from here? The wonderfully distinguished folks over at SCOTUSblog have done the math, and determined that, in the last 30 years, the average spread between nomination and confirmation has been 72 days. Clerquette can't help but wonder what those days will bring. Will the disco ball of SCOTUS glamor illuminate the next 72 days, blinding judicial stargazers with 1,000 (or more) points of light? Or will the confirmation process follow the path of a high school quarterback, peaking early and then attempting to reclaim the glorious sheen of yesteryear?

The above-signed blogress can't help but wonder whether we're bound for Door #2. While it's only the morning after, the chatter on both sides is remarkably tame. On the pro-SS side, the plaudits are standard issue: effusive and slightly over the top, as one might expect. Sotomayor "has been hailed as one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting;" she was a "fearless and effective prosecutor;" she saved baseball. Commentary by detractors is also ho-hum: theoretical opponents insist that she is a "liberal activist of the first order"; that she is a "racist" who does not appreciate the finer points of white men; that she is a "kind of a bully on the bench." That she shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

But even the most voiciferous criticisms strike this blogress as, well, somewhat flaccid. Why (you ask)? Because, Groupies: it appears that POTUS may have picked a candidate who is as bulletproof as they come. Her backstory could be the script for an inspiring Lifetime movie. Her academic credentials are beyond reproach. Her personal life (SS is divorced with no children) seems sterile enough to guarantee that there are no slyly-paid nannies in the closet and no Alfred Pirro (or Bill Clinton!)-esque husband with naughty proclivities. And, as one who has served the public for most of her career, she seems an unlikely candidate for complex financial pecadilloes, or an unfortunate game of "How Many Houses do I Own?"

But wait: there's more to Sotomayor's magical forcefield. Take the claim that SS is "racist," por ejemplo: it seems to have originated with Rush Limbaugh. Two words: Credibility fail. In addition, SS's discussion of how her judicial philosophy is informed by being a Latina woman can hardly be attacked without the risk of offending Latinos and women, whom the GOP can ill-afford to piss off. What about the claims that she is a judicial activist? Well, upon closer examination, her comments on that subject were somewhat non-committal, and more in the nature of an observation than a firm "Yes we can ... make policy at the Court of Appeals level!" proclamation. (See also Ricci, in which SS was not nearly active enough for some.)

Finally, some have observed that her opinions are "exhaustive but often narrow," and best described as "technical," "incremental," and evincing "unflashy competence." In other words, they are par for the course. As former members of the court family are well aware, for every sexy case that comes down the pike, there are countless others which push the limits of one's tolerance for the dormant commerce clause, the meaning of a particular ERISA provision, or anything related to the law of the sea.

Given POTUS's successful selection of a nominee who may well walk between the raindrops of a confirmation-related storm front, the "question presented" is this: what will the conversation turn to?? SS's hair? Her clothes? Her (gasp) implicit endorsement of gambling, in the form of law clerk card games at Chez Sotomayor? Please, dear readers, share your thoughts!

The above-signed blogress dreams of events as exciting as and new as the announcement of a SCOTUS nominee (and a potentially diva-riffic one, at that!). Indeed, Clerquette retired last night with visions of the dawning of the Age of Sonia, Diane, Elena, or Janet dancing in her head.

Today, that age dawned, while this blogress watched from cyber exile. Imagine the indignity of being stuck all day in interstate transit, like some kind of heavily regulated truck ... and far from the blogosphere. The horror, dear readers: the horror.

But enough about me. Clerquette directs your attention (or any remaining shards not already focused on the newest Soon to Be Supreme) to Judge Sotomayor.

By now, we all know her story -- and quelle story it is! She's from the hood; she was raised by a single mother after her father's untimely death; she was inspired by Nancy Drew, Girl Detective. She moved on up, from the Bronxdale houses to Princeton, and then to Yale. She's been known to pine - pre swine flu, of course -for pigs' feet. Yes: these are among the elements of a carefully crafted love story to our new Justice-in-waiting, designed to convey the true irresistibility of the woman we are about to pick apart. Indeed, as some have observed, her compelling personal narrative seems almost as central to her presentation as a nominee as her credentials.

In the coming weeks and months, much attention will be devoted to the hypothetical inquiry into why Judge Sotomayor should ascend to Supreme-hood. But, for the moment, this blogress wonders how POTUS could have picked anyone else, given her slam-dunk fulfillment of so many criterion of the "nominee must be empathetic, look good in black," sort. (See, e.g., John Dickerson's thoughts on BHO's calculus, in this Slate piece.)

But there will be time yet, dear readers, for a hundred visions and revisions of our collective thoughts on Sonia from the Block, before the taking of testimony at her eventual confirmation hearing. For now, Clerquette will abstain from further beating of the dead horse, and leave you instead with a few photos which, in her humble opinion, are most likely to become emblematic in the coming months.

Most Likely to Demonstrate the Multi Cultural Values of the Obama Administration

Most Likely to Demonstrate that SS is a Survivor -- of Horrific Eighties Fashion and Eyewear Trends

Most Likely to Demonstrate that SS is Among those Who Appear to be Ignoring Joe Biden

May 20, 2009

Bonjour, Groupies! The above-signed blogress has missed her dear readers, though she has it on information and belief that you were well cared-for by A3G AND our new friend, Blair Lawdorf. But enough chit-chat: let's get down to business.

When last we spoke, Clerquette was under the impression that the roster of potential SCOTUS nominees had been reduced to a much-touted "short list," comprised of six -- and possibly eight names. To refresh your collective recollections, the candidates for ascension were Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Diane Wood, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, Governor Jennifer Granholm, and California Supreme Court Justice and hopeless longshot unlikely nominee Carlos Moreno. Some SCOTUS watchers were betting on Court of Appeals Judge Merrick Garland in place of Moreno, but who are we kidding? Though both are distinguished jurists, they lack the crucial XX factor.

Given the general consensus that the above-cited short list represented the Most Likely to Hold Court at One First Street, Clerquette is puzzled by the recent emergence of dark horses, many of whom have been flying so far below the radar that they might well be mistaken for Canada geese, or fancy kites. With sources as reputable as Nina Totenberg and the ABA Journal tossing names into the Souter replacement waters like judicial chum, Clerquette has to wonder: whither will this folly lead us, Nina & Co.?

Among the names now festooning the list of nominees, like sprinkles on a sundae, are the following:

Christine Arguello - District Judge for the District of Colorado.

Reuben Castillo - District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

Nora Demleitner - Dean of Hofstra Law School, and prompter of much puzzled head-scratching.

JoAnn Epps - Dean of Temple Law School and known sports fan.

Annette Gordon-Reed - New York Law School Professor and winner of the extremely sexy Pulitzer Prize.

Caitlin Halligan - former Solicitor General in New York; now partner at Weil, Gothsal, & Manges.

Patricia O'Hara - Soon-to-be former Dean of University of Notre Dame Law School.

Johnnie Rawlison - Sassily-named judge on the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Bryan Stevenson - Death penalty abolitionist.

Patricia Timmons-Goodson - first African-American member of the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Again, Clerquette is not sure what explains the sudden focus on obscure and random lesser known candidates. One guess is that POTUS is attempting to fake left, muddying the waters to detract focus from a single nominee. Another is that someone in or around the White House is gathering names for a fantasy judicial draft. For the record, Clerquette LOVES the idea, and will gladly bring the chips, dip, and crudite when the draft is held, presumably over at BHO's place. Could there be another explanation for the sudden advancement of these names - some of whom belong to people who were unaware that they were in the running at all? If there is, dear readers, and you know what it is: do tell! And, more to the point, do any of them have fantastic hidden qualifications, like General Elena Kagan? Kagan is known, inter alia, for her bold decision to provide "free coffee to caffeine hungry law students," which, in this blogress's humble opinion, is more than enough direct evidence of outstanding E-factor to justify Kagan's nomination to the bench, and perhaps for sainthood.

May 18, 2009

While it seems Diane Wood is the current front runner, I would like BHO
to consider a dark horse candidate that could bring some much-needed
fabulousity to the Supremes - Amazing Race grand prize winner Tammy
Jih! Tammy is everything that President Hunky is looking for in a
justice: young (she's only 28), female, a minority, and a full time
litigatrix (NOT a crusty appellate judge). Think about it: she's young
enough to not have left much of a paper trail regarding her judicial
philosophy, she has trial experience, and America has gotten to know
her diverse skill set after watching her every week on season 14 of the
Amazing Race. While she may not have to face a deadly cheese wheel or
carry a pig on the bench, surely her problem solving approach and
drive would serve her well when matching wits with the likes of Nino and the gang. The challenges she faced on the show will be a breeze compared to
the Senate confirmation process. As an added bonus, her sartorial sense
would be another force in Mrs. Obama's arsenal against the DC fashion
doldrums. VIVA LA TAMMY (you know you love her)!